The South China Morning Post’s op-ed page goes into total patriotic mode today.
One Norbert Knittelmayer (cross-border investment guy from Dusseldorf, thus totally objective) criticizes Germany’s government for its skepticism about Chinese state-linked companies scooping up sensitive tech companies. Berlin, he says, should instead be wetting itself in delight at (cue fanfare) Belt and Road Opportunities…
We stride deeper into mind-warping territory with one Zhou Bo – PLA expert, etc – who lauds Philippine President Duterte’s wisdom and statecraft, and explains that the US is the only threat to peace in the South China Sea…
And we get into full-on hallucinatory selective and revisionist dream-land with Liu Jia, executive at China Everbright, who informs us that Hong Kong’s success as a financial centre had nothing to do with colonial rule, but was due to Mao…
(I get it: he didn’t starve millions to death here!)
The SCMP’s political editor offers partial relief in a column pointing out that Beijing’s obsessive interference in Hong Kong is likely to increase rather than weaken alienation and pro-independence sentiment among the city’s young people – but not without a laborious pre-emptive cringe to assure the Work Unit’s Party Secretary of his correct understanding…
The post-interpretation court judgement on the Youngspiration oath-mutilation case is later today. Whatever the outcome, we are in a self-perpetuating cycle: China’s psychosis about Hong Kong creates Hong Kong hostility to China, and so on. To the infallible Communist Party, if the people distrust the government, it is the people who are at fault and who must correct their attitudes – the foot-stamping and ranting will continue until they do.
Under the Leninist system, the law and courts defend the regime from the people, not the other way round. If Hong Kong’s judicial independence and rule of law threaten Beijing’s hyper-sensitive and insecure perception of sovereignty, they must yield. Unlike the civil rights crowd, the pre-emptive cringers of the business community stay silent. Their hope is that while the Communist party might shred due process for trouble-making youths, middle-aged men in suits are so important and special that British colonial-era legal protection will remain fully in place for them.
A risk consultancy offers advice (final bullet points 2 and 4) to companies that dare to worry. It is moderately worded, but you could infer it as saying that decent, clean-living, Western businesses should a) examine exposure to Liaison Office or Chinese government intimidation/bullying, and b) consider the possibility of being screwed over if they conflict with Chinese state-linked companies or individuals in Hong Kong courts.
As I have been saying for years: those who live by the shoe-shine, die by the shoe-shine.
Bring back me!
And Nury, Glenn Gale, Kavita Daswani, Monica Gwee.
All right. Just me then.
you can lick china’s arse as much as you want. It’ll never return the favour…
It’s time for a full on audit of overseas: properties/family links/investments/resident permits/passports, etc of the anti freedom, pro CCP mouth frother crowd from senior level bureaucrats on up to the top and in every corner of society from businessmen, entertainers, bankers, cops, etc and expose once and for all the hypocrisy that is actually already well known to most.
Just put it ALL down for the record, because these are the ones with the “escape-when-shit-hits-the-fan” cards that the vast majority of decent Hong Kongers don’t have.
This is all very disturbing. I am seriously thinking of ending it all and chucking myself out of the window.
Oh bugger! The helper has already gone through it.
@Chinese Netizen – David Webb’s database is a good starting point for officially published (but often hard to dig out) information on business connections.
Sometimes I miss Leon Richardson. (I didn’t mean it, I didn’t mean it !!!!)
Judge ruled in favour of Beijing — let the rioting commence!
As to the judgement, sadly predictable.
1) See Au J’s comments in his reasons for giving leave.
2) Plus he is essentially pro government. You have to work very hard and have an irrefutable case for him to find in your favour if you challenging the government.
Thus oop north probably not needed, but no way he will not oblige given that “ruling”
In any event some fearless local academic should do a “the politics of the judiciary”
What is absolutely mean and very nasty if for our Chief Executive and secretary for Injustice not only to seek costs but be awarded them. Four fifths to be borne by the two none ex Legco members and one fifth by the president. Shall be surprised if the President actually has to put his hand in his pocket, but the other two when they cannot pay will I am sure be made bankrupt.
If CY acting as CE then why he need to be involved at all? If CY acting as himself, but becasue he is CE, how can he instruct department of injustice. In any event it is called well and truly stuffing, without mercy or conscience, your opposition.
Obviously CY has been watching how Singapore does it. Screw the loser down with massive costs. No need for beatings and all that unpleasantness. Nice and clean.
@dimuendo – the words “conscience”and “CY” do not belong in the same paragraph.
But wait – there’s more! According to the judge in the case (as reported by the SCMP), only the courts can make a final decision on whether an oath has been validly taken. If correct, this calls into question the validity of every oath-taker’s position unless it has been confirmed by a court. This in turn calls into question every action they have taken in their official capacity. So much for the supposed certainty provided by the NPCSC clarification. Bring on the appeals!
I hold no truck with Singapore but at least they are “honest” in that as I understand it the “great” Mr Lee, and his various acolytes, (used to) use private practioners, and have at least a nomial interest in paying their own costs, not using the government legal service with the taxpayer picking up the bill. What they do have in common, it would appear, is no risk of losing before the local (independent) judiciary.
I have yet to plough through the full judgemnt, but if the SCMP is as you state, then for once I very much hope they have got it wrong. Pandora’s box etc but also Au J and the courts will be over whelmed while seeking to play god.
This raises still more legal questions – can the duo run again in the ensuing by-elections? The question of the government’s power to exclude localist candidates is still before the courts following the last election.
Sorry, either age or general torpor from lack of opportunity to use my brain.
The one fifth costs order against the President will be a useful weapon to ensure compliance in future. I bet the guy really wishes he had not given up his passport, assuming he has.
@Chinese Netizen: Succinct and very well said, sir!
Dimuendo at 4.49pm smelled the rat and reductio at 5.17pm nailed it.
Torches and pitchforks, citizens!
The moon is bright tonight,
The air is warm, the breeze blows fair
Upon the streets; the Shenzhen lights
Glitter and flash; but Hong Kong stands
Greater and brighter, beside the fragrant harbour.
Come to the window, mild is the night air!
Only, look, in the moonlit harbour
Under the ferry piers, the water swirls
Dark and oily, stained and littered.
It slaps the piers and brings
The eternal note of sadness in.
Confucius long ago, by the Yellow River
Saw the foul water, and it brought
Into his mind the turbid ebb and flow
Of human life; we
Find also in the sight a thought
Seeing it by this distant southern sea.
The Rule of Law
Was once, too, at the full, and on our shore
Shone with a light complete.
But now we only see
Its melancholy, long retreat.
Ah, love, let us still hope
And still look forward! though this place, which seemed
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
Of work and promise, hope and zest,
Has really neither certainty nor light.
The moon may never shine so bright again.
And we are here as on a twilit plain
Blown by strange winds of wrong and right,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.
[with acknowledgement to ‘Dover Beach’ by Matthew Arnold]
Legal costs should not be too onerous, after all this case was heard in record time so unless the entire legal community was engaged there cannot be more than a certain number of man hours involved. If the bill is sky high it has to be taxed. No SC was brought in from London.
Then an online appeal will soon bring the required funds in. There have been a number of crowd funding appeals previously and the response has always been positive.
If that fails Ms. Yau could try her charms on Joseph Lau who seems to be a sucker when it comes to dispensing his not so hard earned bucks to younger ladies.
I’m with Mary Melville on the costs — not punitive really — reckon Jimmy Lai might well help out the disqualified popularly elected representatives, if crowdfunding doesn’t make it.
Ironically it may just be Mr 38, the unpopularly elected LegCo President who may well end up the only one get stiffed, given the “United” Front’s general levels of compassion and humanity. Now there’s a delicious thought.
What do Mary, LRE and others of such view now think given news not only costs orders but repayment of salaries and allowances drawn down (and at least in part spent) by the two immature idiots? Bankruptcy follows as soon as the powers that be can enforce it.